Talk:Parazoanthus

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I reverted the last edition from Stho002 as there was no justification to his action and it contains scientifically incorrect information (without any reference), thus it could be indeed assimilated as vandalism considering the insistance with which Stho002 keep deleting my work and references. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsinniger (talk • contribs).

Ok boys. Simmer down.... I want you both to make a list of species you believe are in this genus. I want to see where you agree, and where you disagree.... - user:UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fsinniger has views of his own, which he is trying to force upon others (i.e., myself) in an aggressive and very un-Wiki fashion. Therefore I am going to block him for a few days until he cools down ... Stho002 (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the wrong thing to do. You are not neutral. Please comply with my request: list the species you believe are in this genus. - user:UtherSRG (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So all I am asking is any published reference concerning P. puertoricensis and P. dixonorum both name, to my knowledge having been never published while P. puertoricense West, 1979 is a valid and used species and P. dixoni is an invalid species recognised a a junior synonym of P. axinellae. If you look at the previous edits you will see that the orginal description for each name of the list was provided in the reference section... Moreover P. tunicans has now moved to be the type species of the genus Hydrozoanthus (Family Hydrozoanthidae) interestingly the admninistrator reinserting P. tunicans in the Parazoanthus list is the same person inserting it (correctly) as type species of Hydrozoanthus. Then for an indicative list of all Parazoanthus species published see here [1] . this list is indicative only as it contains non valid species such as P. gelegentlich which simply means "P. occasionally" and some synonyms. Moreover some species have been moved to/out of this genus or recently described and I do not have time to establish a complete list right now (the reason why I had inserted a mention that the species list was incomplete). On the other hand there are a few more valid species than the "valid species" list, and this list contains also species moved in other genera... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsinniger (talk • contribs).
Please sign your talk edits.
disputed areas Fsinniger comments Stho0022 comments resolution suggestions
puertoricensis vice puertoricense puertoricense West 1979 is valid, other spelling never published puertoricensis
dixonorum vice dixoni dixonorum never published, dixonii junior to axinellae dixonorum correct by ICZN rules, even though not published, also agree junior to axinellae One of you should just move dixonorum & dixoni to axinellae, since you both know it is the right placement
tunicans moved to Hydrozoanthus as type species
Have I caught all of the existing disputed areas? Are there anything others? - user:UtherSRG (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very complex (but inconsequential) issue. It isn't about which species are valid, but mainly about what to do with published names that are objectively incorrectly spelled in the published literature. A species was published as P. dixoni, but explicitly named after two brothers, so the spelling should be P. dixonorum according to the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The system isn't well designed to handle these sorts of problems, so I have chosen to solve it by listing the correct spelling as the valid name (even though it hasn't been published as such, because it is the correct spelling according to the Code). If you type Parazoanthus dixoni into the search box, you get redirected to P. dixonorum, so both versions of the name are present in Wikispecies, and I have just chosen to make the correct spelling the primary one). Fsinniger's preference is to make the incorrect spelling the primary one because there has been no published correction, but that is just his personal preference, and there are no hard and fast rules about this. He is in no position to insist upon this. There are far better things for him to do, like adding more new articles. I am prepared to discuss the issue further with him, and maybe rethink my position, but I am not prepared to let him just insist that I do it his way ... Stho002 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I invited User:Fsinniger to create a page for P. axinellae, so we could list P. dixonorum/dixoni as a synonym, and improve the situation slightly. He chose to ignore my invitation but continue to argue and complain. He does not understand the step by step methodology which we need to follow to sort out these sorts of complex problems on Wikispecies ... Stho002 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems we are already arriving at some bits of resolution. I've updated the table. Whichever of you thinks you are the better man should make the new article with dixonorum and dixoni redirecting to it. - user:UtherSRG (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other areas of dispute (so far) between the two of you that I haven't captured in the table? Stho002, what do you say about the other two areas of dispute? - user:UtherSRG (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main dispute is about how to handle spellings that are incorrect according to the Code, but not corrected in the published literature. I have chosen to handle these one way, but his preference is opposite, despite the fact that BOTH versions of the names are there (one redirect to other). He isn't going to change his mind about that (I don't think). The other issues he is now bringing in are different. I listed some names as valid, temporarily, going by the literature I had at hand. If he has more recent literature at hand that places them elsewhere (as synonyms or in other genera), then I am INVITING him to edit the pages accordingly, citing his references. It is a step by step process... Stho002 (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make a new article, or move the existing one to the new name, adding the relevant info to say why? I think a move is probably better, but it's been some time now since I've done work here on this Wiki.... but shouldn't the end result be one article, at axinellae, with both dixonorum and dixoni pointing to it?
So yes, the heart of the dispute in this area (at least) is whether Wikispecies should be a primary source (a place for individual researchers to publish original research), a secondary source (where we gather the most recent primary source information and synthesize it), or a tertiary source (where we report on what the other existing sources say, neither correcting errors or creating new data). I know on Wikipedia the answer would be "tertiary".... but what's the current stance here on Wikispecies? - user:UtherSRG (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't understand the issue! This issue has NOTHING to do with original research, which we don't allow on Wikispecies. I don't understand the rest of your comments. This is the problem - communication... Stho002 (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't know the difference between secondary and tertiary sources? Your stance seems to be that Wikispecies should take existing primary source data (dixoni and puertoricoense) and correct it (dixonorum and puertoricoensis). Is this a correct restatement of your stance? - user:UtherSRG (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is more complicated: my stance is that we should correct objective errors according to the Code, while having BOTH versions searchable with a redirect from the incorrect spelling to the corrected spelling, but with the corrected spelling primary. Although this issue might seem unnecessary, it is part of a bigger issue which is required for logical consistency within Wikispecies - different primary sources added together aren't necessarily logically consistent, but Wikispecies obviously needs to be logically consistent ... Stho002 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's called synthesis: taking data from two or more primary sources and coming up with a larger picture. I'm not opposed to it entirely, but I don't know that it is allowed. It isn't on Wikipedia. Of course, sometimes synthesis isn't avoidable, and in some cases a single statement can reduce the offense. In this case, having the article located at axinellae, with both dixonorum and dixoni pointing to it, avoids the synthesis. (So just be the bigger guy already and make that change...) With puertoricoense and puertoricoensis, it isn't as easy. Since puertoricoensis hasn't been published, it should be the redirect for now, with a note at puertoricoense explaining that the name is incorrect according to ICZN rules. There's still synthesis there, but the greater offense would be to use an totally unpublished term. Likewise, at axinellae there should be a note that talks about the junior synonym, and how it, too, is not correct according to ICZN rules. Does this make sense to you? The redirects will be searchable, but the final location will be the published terms. - user:UtherSRG (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We all made modifications at the same time it seems, so I agree with UtherSRG (with the little detail that the accepted and used species name is puertoricense). Maybe a discussion on each species page about the correct or not nomenclature would be interesting. Here is the answer I wanted to add before... You might have pointed the problem. I do not consider wikispecies as a primary source information (there are peer reviewed journals for that), but rather as a secondary source summarizing the most updated knowledge providing access to taxonomic information to non specialist (school kids, photographs, writers, or even researchers not specialised in this field). I do not recommend adjusting names accepted by ICZN and used in field guides, scientific research, picture books for names that appear only on wikispecies. I suggest to Stho002 to write a note in a peer reviewed journal about the taxonomic issue or to submit his cases to the ICZN commission for official acceptance. As a taxonomist I have a high respect for previous taxonomists usually knew more about taxonomy and nomenclature than most of us. If Wikispecies becomes the first place to cite a species name, then it becomes a first source of information, due to the open access and the possibility to change this information at any time, I do not think it is a good way to follow. But this last point is completely a personal point of view. To solve this problem of nomenclature, I would then suggest to contact other specialists of the taxonomy of this order such as Dr. James Reimer from the University of the Ryukyus or even any other anthozoan taxonomist such as Dr. Daphne Fautin who is also a member of the ICZN commission. In due time I will create a page for each species, however my professional work has been already retarded enough by this (and there I agree I think totally with both of you) silly dispute and I cannot afford to spend more time on this issue at the moment. Also I do not understand why the references for the species are continuously removed. Considering how unskilled I am editing Wikispecies pages, those references took me a considerable amount of time to add, so an explanation concerning this simple deletion would be more than welcome... Good luck with wikispecies and hopefully see you soon on these pages with those issues resolved in one way or another.
I see that the invalid names are still there and the references still missing, which makes me guess that the issue has still not been resolved. I will try to make a link here to the international code of zoological nomenclature about original spelling (if the link works, once you are there feel free to check also the other articles, I might have missed something) so here is the link [2]. Now if wikispecies aim is to develop a parallel system with its own rules then it is all my mistake, but else I would appreciate explanation on the deletion of the references (else I am not sure to make the difference between deleting consequent information without any reason and vandalism) and maybe if I missed something in the ICZN, I would love to see the article about emending a name used since a long time without problems to something never published... user:Fsinniger (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 1 external links on Parazoanthus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 1 external links on Parazoanthus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parazoanthus&oldid=8066368"